HD 

33 


UC-NRLF 


^B    TM    1^3 


S;-;feS|,«g£fS*- 


THE  COST  OF  COTTON  PEODUCTION 


SEASON,  1917-18 


ESiABHSIIED    tSC.O 

H.  F.  Baciiman  &  Co. 

BANKERS 


lolJi  CHESTNUT  STREET 


61    BROAI»VA:i^ 
>fKW  YORK. 


Members  of 
NEW  YORK  STOCK  EXCHANGE 
NEW  YORK  COTTON  EXCHANGE 
NEW  YORK  COFFEE  EXCHANGE 
NEW  YORK  PRODUCE  EXCHANGE 
PHILADELPHIA  STOCK  EXCHANGE 
CHICAGO  BOARD  OF  TRADE 

Associate  Members  of 
LIVERPOOL  COTTON  ASSOCIATION 


F  E  IJ  R  U  ik  R  Y     I^  ^  ,     19  18 


mm. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/costofcottonprodOObachrich 


THE  COST  OF  COTTON  PRODUCTION 


SEASON,  1917-18 


ESTABLISHED    1866 

H.  F.  Bachman  &  Co. 

BANKERS 

1512  CHESTNUT  STREET  61    BROAI»VAY 

PHILADELPHIA.  NEW  YORK 

Members  of 
NEW  YORK  STOCK  EXCHANGE 
NEW  YORK  COTTON  EXCHANGE 
NEW  YORK  COFFEE  EXCHANGE 
NEW  YORK  PRODUCE  EXCHANGE 
PHILADELPHIA  STOCK  EXCHANGE 
CHICAGO  BOARD  OF  TRADE 

Associate  Members  of 
LIVERPOOL  COTTON  ASSOCIATION 


FEBRUA.RY    S2,     1918 


COPYBIGHT    BY    H.    P.    BACHMAN    &    CO. 


cryO 


<x^ 


>  •  •  •      • 


>»,* 


Established  1866 

H.  F.  Bachman  &  Co. 

BANKERS 

61  BROADM^AY,  NEW  YORK 


February  21st,  1918. 

Average  Cost  Production  1917-18 .11.28^  per  pound 

Average  Price  Obtained  by  Farmers 27.50^  per  pound 

Average  Net  Profit $31.55     per  acre 

At  no  time  within  the  memory  of  this  generation  has  there 
been  so  marked  a  variance  of  opinion  as  at  present  in  the  matter 
of  the  actual  cost  of  producing  cotton.  In  order  that  this  cost 
might  be  scientifically  and  accurately  determined,  we  requested 
our  Watkins  Bureau  to  make  an  exhaustive  investigation  of  the 
elements  entering  therein.  The  figures  in  detail  and  the  resultant 
averages  are  given  in  the  report  herewith  presented.  The  in- 
vestigation was  conducted  under  the  personal  suj>ervision  of 
Mr.  James  L.  Watkins,  Sr. 

The  first  investigation  of  this  character  ever .  undertaken 
was  conducted  by  Mr.  Watkins  for  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment in  1896-97,  while  holding  the  position  of  Chief  Cotton 
Statistician  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture  at  Wash- 
ington. 

In  submitting  this  report  we  are  giving  to  the  public 
the  most  accurate  set  of  statistical  facts  that  can  possibly 
be  obtained  on  this  subject,  prepared  by  one  who  has  made  a 
scientific  study  of  conditions  pertaining  to  cotton  cultivation  in 
every  important  producing  county  in  the  United  States  for  the 
past  twenty-five  years.  We  trust  that  the  information  set  forth 
will  prove  of  interest  and  value  not  only  to  the  farming  com- 
munity of  the  South,  but  to  all  classes  of  the  cotton  trade  and 
manufacturing  industries  throughout  the  World. 

It  is,  perhaps,  an  unfortunate  fact,  but  a  fact  nevertheless, 
that  war  creates  an  abnormal  industrial  activity,  and  consequent 


415324 


abnormal  profits.  It  is  commonly  assumed  that  these  profits  are 
reaped  almost  entirely  by  manufacturing  and  distributing  in- 
terests, and  enjoyed  in  only  a  small  measure  by  the  agricultural 
population.  This  would  indeed  be  an  inequitable  and  oppressive 
situation  were  it  really  to  exist,  since  it  would  mean  added  bur- 
dens upon  the  agriculturist,  with  no  added  means  of  bearing 
them. 

The  figures  set  forth  in  the  following  report  dispel  this  as- 
sumption, and  evidence  a  proportionate  prosperity  among  the 
cotton  growers  of  the  country,  and  it  is  most  fortunate  for  the 
national  welfare  that  such  should  be  the  case.  The  country's 
need  of  a  large  cotton  crop  in  the  coming  year  is  imperative, 
and  it  is  idle  to  suppose  that  such  could  be  raised  without  the 
likelihood  of  a  reward  at  least  reasonably  commensurate  with 
that  reaped  in  other  fields  of  endeavor.  But  the  appended  report 
shows  that  cotton  raising  is  profitable,  and  would  be  even  though 
the  selling  price  were  somewhat  less  than  that  now  obtaining. 
The  World's  shortage  of  cotton  is  acute,  and  a  large  crop,  even 
a  huge  crop,  would  be  absorbed  just  as  soon  as  an  opportunity  to 
move  it  along  normal  channels  may  be  presented. 

Under  these  circumstances  there  is  every  reason  why  the 
South,  upon  whose  activity  the  national  welfare  so  largely  de- 
pends, should  lend  its  full  energy  to  the  production  of  cotton 
in  the  coming  season.  Next  to  food,  it  is  the  patriotic  duty  of 
the  Southern  farmer  to  plant  every  available  acre  in  cotton  this 
Spring.  Cotton  is  the  greatest  money  crop  on  earth.  It  is  gold 
everywhere.  It  is  one  of  our  greatest  sinews  of  war  and  it  will 
be  one  of  our  most  valuable  commercial  assets  after  the  con- 
clusion of  peace.  The  supply  of  cotton  and  cotton  products  has 
been  almost  completely  exhausted  in  every  country  in  Europe. 
When  the  freedom  of  commerce  on  the  seas  is  again  restored  the 
demand  for  cotton  will  be  practically  insatiable  as  long  as  ships 
can  be  obtained  to  move  it. 

There  is  a  shortage  throughout  the  World  of  almost  every 
necessity  of  life.  The  South  has  it  within  its  power  to  prevent 
any  shortage  of  clothing.  The  price  is  attractive  enough  to  in- 
sure a  handsome  profit  on  every  pound  of  cotton  that  can  be 
produced.  Not  only  the  welfare  of  this  Nation  demands  that 
every  effort  should  be  put  forth  to  insure  the  largest  possible 


crop  this  year,  but  the  welfare  of  mankind  absolutely  depends 
upon  it.  For  this  reason  the  farmer  is  entitled  to  every  induce- 
ment which  high  prices  and  a  reasonable  profit  may  afford. 

The  present  relatively  high  price  of  cotton  is  due  not  at  all 
to  speculation,  for  indeed  there  has  been  no  speculation  in  cotton 
at  any  time  during  this  entire  season.  The  reason  for  high  prices 
is  perfectly  plain.  The  total  consumption  of  American  cotton 
for  the  past  three  years  was  42,696,000  bales,  while  the  total 
production  amounted  to  only  36,617,000  bales.  The  only  possible 
remedy  for  this  condition  must  come  through  a  largely  increased 
production. 

Very  truly  yours, 

H.  F.  Bachman  &  Co. 
Dictated  by 
Mr.  H.  M.  Peers. 


JAMES  L.  WATKINS  &  SON 

COTTON  STATISTICAL  BUREAU 

OF 

H.    F.    BACHMAN    &   CO. 
61  BROADWAY  NEW  YORK 

February  21st,  1918. 
Messrs.  H.  F.  Bach  man  &  Co., 

New  York  City. 
Dear  Sirs: — 

We  have  the  honor  of  submitting  herewith  a  report  on  the 
cost  of  cotton  production  in  the  United  States  during  the  sea- 
son 1917.  All  of  the  data  and  information  upon  which  our 
estimates  are  based  were  obtained  from  our  County  correspond- 
ents, numbering  over  2,000,  whose  reports  on  all  matters  relat- 
ing to  the  cotton  crop  we  have,  with  over  ten  years'  experience, 
found  always  reliable.  Our  correspondents  were  given  full 
and  explicit  instructions  as  to  the  information  desired,  and 
they  were  followed  with  such  good  judgment  that  only  a  com- 
paratively small  number  of  reports  had  to  be  rejected,  either 
on  account  of  incompleteness,  or  where  the  data  related  to  aver- 
age years  instead  of  the  season  1917.  No  reports  were  rejected 
on  account  of  high  or  low  cost  of  cultivation  or  high  or  low 
price  of  cotton  or  of  seed. 

We  take  this  occasion  to  return  our  thanks  to  our  County 
Correspondents,  without  whose  zealous  assistance  we  could  not 
have  succeeded  with  this  investigation,  and  we  also  wish  to 
thank  the  Directors  of  the  Experiment  Stations  who  have  fur- 
nished us  with  valuable  information  relating  to  the  effect  of 
fertilization  upon  the  cotton  crop  of  1917. 

Yours  very  truly, 


Statistical  Bureau  of  H.  F.  Bach  man  &  Co. 


INTRODUCTION. 

It  may  as  well  be  understood  at  the  very  outset  that  the  cost 
of  producing  a  pound  of  cotton  varies  from  year  to  year;  not 
only  so,  but  it  varies  in  each  State,  in  each  County,  and  indeed 
the  cultivated  fields  on  the  same  plantation  may  produce  varied 
results,  or,  as  one  of  our  Correspondents  puts  it,  "the  cost  may 
differ  as  much  as  5  cents  per  pound  between  two  neighbors," 
and  another  that  "I  have  between  fifteen  and  twenty  tenants 
and  no  two  ever  raised  a  crop  of  cotton  at  the  same  cost."  No 
two  farmers  spend  exactly  the  same  amount  of  money,  labor 
or  skill  in  cultivating  a  cotton  crop.  Besides,  no  matter  how 
intensive  the  cultivation,  there  are  adverse  weather  conditions 
during  the  planting  and  growing  season,  diseases  of  the  plant, 
the  ravages  of  insects,  early  frosts,  etc.,  one  or  more,  or  all  of 
which  may  combine  to  cut  down  the  yield,  often  leaving  little 
or  no  profit  and  even  a  loss. 

Aside  from  the  investigation  here  undertaken,  only  two 
others  relating  to  this  question  have  ever  been  made  on  a 
scale  at  all  commensurate  with  its  importance.  Both  investi- 
gations were  made  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, one  for  the  season  1896-97  (the  report  upon  which  was 
prepared  by  the  present  writer),  and  the  other  for  the  season 
1909-10,  the  report  upon  which  was  made  by  Mr.  Nat  C.  Mur- 
ray, Assistant  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics.  These  three 
reports  illustrate  in  the  most  striking  manner  how  great  the 
cost  of  production  may  vary  at  different  periods.  This  variance 
is  illustrated  as  follows,  the  figures  being  the  averages  for  the 
United  States : 
Total   average    cost   of   producing   cotton    per    acre   in 

1896-97 $15.42 

Total   average   cost   of   producing   cotton   per   acre   in 

1909-10 20.35 

Total   average   cost   of   producing   cotton   per   acre   in 

1917-18 34.76 

Total   average  value  of  lint   at  6.70  cents  per  pound, 

1896-97 17.13 

Total   average  value  of  lint   at   12.9  cents  per  pound, 

1909-10 31.60 

Total  average  value   of  lint  at  27.5   cents  per  pound, 

1917-18 53.49 


^       6 

Here  we  find  that,  as  compared  with  1896-97,  the  total  cost 
per  acre  in  1909-10  increased  about  32  per  cent.,  and  that  the 
total  cost  in  1917-18,  as  compared  with  1909-10,  increased  a 
little  more  than  70.5  per  cent.,  while  the  increase  in  the  cost  of 
the  two  widest  separated  periods  is  more  than  125  per  cent. 
Similarly,  a  great  variance  is  shown  in  the  total  value  of  the 
returns  of  lint  per  acre — unfortunately,  the  Government's  re- 
port for  1909-10  made  no  allowance  for  the  value  of  by-products, 
and  hence  comparisons  can  only  be  made  with  the  returns  of 
lint.  The  average  number  of  pounds  of  lint  returned  in  1896-97 
was  255.6;  in  1909-10,  245  pounds,  and  in  1917-18,  194.5  pounds. 
The  price  of  lint  varied  greatly,  that  for  1896-97  averaging  6.70 
cents;  that  for  1909-10,  12.9  cents,  and  that  for  1917-18,  27.5 
cents  per  pound.  This  variance — each  successive  period  show- 
ing a  great  increase — accounts  for  an  increase  of  92.8  per  cent, 
in  1909-10,  as  compared  with  1896-97,  while  an  increase  of  113.2 
per  cent,  is  shown  in  1917-18,  as  compared  with  1909-10. 

The  season  covered  by  this  investigation  has  been  an  ex- 
traordinary one  in  many  respects.  The  average  yield  for  the 
whole  of  the  belt  was  one  of  the  smallest  on  record,  due  to  the 
lateness  in  planting  on  account  of  excessive  rains  and  cold 
weather;  to  an  abnormal  deficiency  in  subsoil  moisture  in  the 
Southwest;  to  the  devastation  of  boll  weevils  and  boll  worms, 
and  to  the  extremely  early  and  repeated  frosts  in  October.  And 
yet  there  were  many  favored  regions,  many  plantations  that 
managed  to  gather  full  crops,  and  many  others  average  crops 
or  better.  This  report,  as  will  be  seen  further  on,  reflects  nearly 
every  possible  condition  of  culture,  from  the  most  advanced 
intensive  system  practiced  in  the  Eastern  section  to  the  simple 
and  slipshod  methods  in  some  other  sections.  It  reflects  like- 
wise the  results  of  the  late  crop;  of  the  devastation  of  the 
weevil,  and  of  the  disastrous  drought  in  the  Southwest.  So 
that  upon  examination  we  shall  find  many  plantations  report- 
ing what  would  seem  to  be  unreasonably  high  yields,  and  yet 
others  yields  so  extremely  low  as  also  to  seem  unreasonable, 
some  even  reporting  a  total  failure.  Fortunately,  whatever  the 
yield,  the  price  both  for  lint  and  seed  was  extraordinarily  high, 
the  former  averaging  27.5  cents  a  pound  and  the  latter  about 
$1.00  a  bushel,  and  these  extra  high  prices  saved  many  a  farmer 


from  loss,  while  many  others,  indeed  the  great  majority,  reaped 
a  rich  harvest. 

The  Cost  of  Production  in  Each  State. 

The  table  on  the  following  page  shows  the  average  cost  in 
each  State,  and  the  United  States,  of  the  various  items  necessary 
to  the  production  of  cotton  per  acre ;  the  total  cost  of  production ; 
the  returns  per  acre  in  lint  and  seed,  with  the  value  of  the  same ; 
the  cost  of  production  per  pound,  and  the  net  profit  per  acre. 

The  results  of  this  investigation  show  that  the  average  total 
cost  of  producing  cotton  per  acre  during  the  past  season  in  the 
United  States  was  $34.76,  and  the  average  value  of  the  returns, 
including  seed,  $66.31,  while  the  net  profit  per  acre  was  $31.55. 
The  average  yield  for  the  plantations  reporting  was  194.5  pounds 
and  the  average  price  27.5  cents  a  pound.  The  average  yield 
of  seed  returned  was  12.5  bushels  and  the  average  price  of 
the  same  slightly  more  than  $1.00  per  bushel,  or  the  equivalent 
of  about  $65.00  per  ton.  The  average  cost  of  producing  upland 
cotton  in  all  States  was  11.28  cents  per  pound;  the  cost  of  Flor- 
ida sea  island  was  16  cents  per  pound,  while  the  Arizona  long 
staple  Egyptian  was  estimated  to  cost  as  high  as  41.74  cents 
per  pound — due  to  the  very  high  cost  of  irrigation. 

Rent  of  Land. 

In  some  sections  of  the  cotton  belt  it  is  the  custom  to  rent 
lands  for  a  money  rental,  in  other  sections  the  share  system 
obtains,  the  share  depending  upon  whether  the  landowner  fur- 
nishes the  tenant  with  everything  necessary  to  make  the  crop, 
or  whether  the  tenant  furnishes  himself.  Sometimes  the  tenant 
partly  furnishes  himself,  and  hence  gets  a  better  share  than  if 
he  depended  altogether  upon  the  landowner  for  his  supplies. 
The  general  custom  is  either  one-fourth,  or  one-third  of  the 
crop,  according  to  the  expenses  borne  by  the  landowner  or 
tenant.  The  average  rent  for  cotton  lands  in  the  United  States 
last  year  was  $7.50.  The  highest  rental  charge  was  $36.66  per 
acre  reported  from  North  Carolina,  which  was  about  one-fourth 
the  value  of  lint  and  seed.  Other  high  rental  charges  are  $30.00 
in  Georgia,  $30.00  in  Arkansas,  and  $26.50  in  Texas.    The  low- 


TABLE  A. 
Cost  per  Acre  of  Items  Necessary  to  Cotton  Production  in  1917. 


STATES. 


Virginia 

North  Carolina... 
Sou  til  Carolina... 

Georgia 

Florida 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Arkansas 

Tennessee 

Missouri 

Oklahoma 

California 

Arizona 

New  Mexico 

United  States 


5.00 
10.70 
7.38 
8.82 
2.25 
4.85 
6.28 
6.10 
6.42 
9.47 
6.47 
10.87 
8.41 
18.75 
25.00 
6.00. 


7.50 


15.00 
10.77 
12.69 
5.88 
6.55 
8.88 
2.89 
8.18 
1.00 
1.80 
1.68 

.30 
2.50 


8.87 


a  a 


5.00 
4.84 
8.88 
8.58 
2.50 
8.78 
8.87 
8.14 
2.94 
8.80 
4.84 
8.03 
2.41 
5.50 
8.00 
2.00 


8.44 


1.00 
1.44 
1.49 
1.41 
1.25 
1.45 
1.55 
1.18 
1.28 
1.54 
1.70 
1.19 
1.09 
.70 
1.60 
1.50 


1.00 
1.30 

.85 
1.25 
1.50 

.96 
1.00 

.86 
1.08 
1.18 
1.28 


.75 
.50 
.75 


.06 


5§ 


10.00 
6.97 
7.98 
6.89 
7.65 
7.48 
8.54 
8.95 
5.74 
7.70 
7.16 
9.50 
6.02 
8.00 
29.00* 
7.50 


7.06 


7.00 
6.89 
6.42 
5.45 
2.75 
4.88 
5.14 
5.97 
5.15 
8.05 
5.21 
10.50 
6.68 
18.12 
18.00 
8.00 


5.88 


2.00 
2.12 
2.02 
1.49 
.98 
1.68 
1.80 
2.49 
1.88 
2.72 
IM 
3.00 
1.68 
2.50 
5.82 
8.50 


8.00 

1.15 

1.04 

.95 

.44 

.92 

1.01 

1.87 

.92 

1.34 


.40 
2.00 
1.76 


§1 


1.00 
1.28 
3.19 
1.98 
1.94 
1.06 
1.52 
1.18 

.78 
1.34 

.78 


.50 
5.00 


II 
HO 


50.00 
46.41 
46.94 
37.15 
26.81 
30.84 
33.10 
34.42 
28.11 
38.89 
30.71 
39.06 
29.20 
."42.72 
94.42 
31.00 


1.35       34.?6 


*  Includes  Irrigation. 


STATES. 


Virginia 

North  Carolina 
South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Arkansas 

Tennessee 

Missouri 

Oklahoma 

California 

Arizona 

New  Mexico... 


United  States. 


Returns  pek  Acre. 


281 

206 

112.5 

152 

180 

189.5 

164.8 


203.5 
175.5 
850 
190 


194.5 


£2 


27.5 

27 

27.6 

87.5 

27.7 

28 

27.5 

26.7 

28.5 

26 

29.2 

25.5 

29.8 

75 


27.5 


72.50 
66.00 
75.87 
56,65 
46.25 
42.21 
50.72 
65.47 
44.13 
59.24 
42.03 
59.42 
44.75 
104.37 
142.50 
56.25 


58.49 


15 

14 

17.5 

14 
5.5 
9.4 

11.6 

14 

10.7 

13.4 

10 

15.7 

10.8 

18.5 

14 

12 


12.5 


cscQ 


17.25 
15.02 
19.27 
13.81 

6.85 
10.60 
12.55 
15.58 

9.86 
15.16 
11.41 
13.95 
11.27 
18.75 
15.12 
15.00 


12.82 


^3 


89.75 
81.02 
95.14 
70.46 
58.10 
52.81 
63.27 
81.05 
53.99 
74.40 
53.44 
73.37 
56.02 
123.12 
157.62 
71.25 


66.81 


Cost  Pee  Pound,  and  Profit 
PER  Acre. 


50.00 
46.41 
46.94 
37.15 
26.81 
30.34 
33.10 
34.42 
28.11 
88.89 
80.71 


52.72 
94.42 
31.00 


84.76 


e5  ® 


17.25 
15.02 
19.27 
13.81 

6.85 
10.60 
12.55 
15.58 

9.86 
15.16 
11.41 
18.95 
11.27 
18.75 
15.12 
15.00 


12.82 


+3  3     . 


32.75 
31.89 
27.67 
23.84 
19.96 
19.74 
20.55 
18.84 
18.25 
28.78 
19.30 
25.13 
17.93 
33.97 
79.30 
16.00 


21.94 


13 


250 

240 

281 

206 

112.5 

152 

180 

189.5 

164.8 

208 

159 

208.5 

175.5 

350 

190 


194.5 


13.10 
13.08 

9.85 
11.33 
17.74 
12.99 
11.42 

9.94 
11.07 
11.42 
12.14 
12.35 
10.21 

9.70 
41.74 

7.11 


11.28 


3        ** 

ojo-3 
>     ^ 


72.50 
66.00 
75.87 
56.65 
46.25 
42.21 
50.72 
65.47 
44.13 
59.24 
42.03 
59.42 
44.75 
104.87 
142.50 


39.75 
34.61 
48.20 
88.31 
26.29 
22.47 
30.17 
46.68 
25.88 
35.51 
22.78 
84.29 
26.82 
70.40 


31.55 


est  rent  was  $1.00  in  each  of  the  States  of  Georgia  and  Missis- 
sippi. The  average  money  rental  seems  to  range  from  $3.00 
to  $5.00. 


COMMERCIAI,  FeRTIUZERS. 

Although  the  aggregate  quantity  of  commercial  fertilizers 
used  on  cotton  lands  last  year  was  far  below  the  normal — per- 
haps by  40  per  cent. — many  farmers  in  the  Eastern  section  made 
liberal  applications,  and  the  returns  almost  without  exception 
show  the  wisdom  of  this  policy,  the  yield  where  this  was  the  case 
ranging  from  300  to  500  pounds  and  more  to  the  acre.  One 
report  from  North  Carolina,  for  instance,  shows  $25.00  per 
acre  expanded  for  fertilizer,  the  returns  from  which  were  a  500 
pound  bale  and  35  bushels  of  seed  per  acre,  the  total  value  of 
which  was  $160.00.  The  highest  expenditures  for  fertilizers 
were  $30.00  per  acre  in  each  of  the  States  of  South  Carolina 
and  Texas,  and  $25.00  in  each  of  the  States  of  North  Carolina 
and  Georgia.  The  lowest  expenditures  per  acre  were  50  cents 
in  Arkansas  and  $1.00  in  each  of  the  States  of  Louisiana  and 
Oklahoma.    The  average  for  all  States  was  $3.87  per  acre. 


Preparation  of  the  Land. 

The  preparation  of  the  land  for  planting  consists  in  clear- 
ing the  fields  of  stalks,  etc.,  left  from  the  old  crop,  breaking  up 
the  land  and  bedding  it  up  into  ridges.  Although  the  average 
cost  of  this  work  in  all  States  was  only  $3.44  per  acre,  there  are 
many  examples  of  high  cost  showing  the  thorough  preparation 
of  the  soil  before  seeding.  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee  each 
spent  as  high  as  $12.00,  South  Carolina,  Alabama  and  Arkansas 
each  $10.00;  while  one  Georgia  farmer  prepared  his  land  at  a 
cost  of  $14.00  per  acre.  In  Georgia,  Alabama  and  Oklahoma 
the  lowest  cost  was  75  cents  in  each  State,  while  in  Western 
Texas,  where  little  or  no  preparation  was  made  for  seeding 
much  of  the  fresh  prairie  lands  of  that  section,  the  cost  some- 
times did  not  exceed  50  cents. 


10 


Seed  for  Pi^nting. 

Often  high  prices,  even  "fancy"  prices  are  paid  for  seed 
cotton.  Numbers  of  farmers  in  different  sections  throughout 
the  belt  devote  themselves  to  the  improvement  and  propagation 
of  high  grade  seed,  seed  having  such  characteristics  as  seem 
best  adapted  to  bring  the  best  results  in  certain  soils  and  climate, 
and  boll  weevil  infested  territory.  Hence,  we  find  planters 
paying  as  high  as  $5.00  in  Tennessee;  $4.00  in  Mississippi  and 
Texas;  and  $3.00  in  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and 
Arkansas.  As  low  as  40  cents  was  the  cost  of  seed  in  Georgia 
and  Oklahoma,  while  50  cents  was  the  cost  in  a  number  of 
other  States.  The  average  for  all  States  was  $1.38,  which,  at 
the  present  price  of  seed,  would  indicate  that  about  one-and-a- 
quarter  bushels  was  the  average  quantity  of  seed  planted  to 
the  acre. 

Planting  the  Seed. 

The  planting  of  the  seed,  which  is  done  almost  wholly  by 
machines,  is  the  second  smallest  cost  among  the  items  necessary 
to  cotton  cultivation,  the  average  for  the  whole  country  being 
$1.06  per  acre.  But  in  some  cases  the  cost  seems  to  be  unac- 
countably high,  for  instance,  $5^)0  in  North  Carolina  and 
Georgia ;  $4.00  in  South  Texas ;  and  $3.50  in  Mississippi.  The 
low  cost  of  25  cents  per  acre  is  noted  in  more  than  one-half  of 
the  States. 

Cui^TIVATING   THE   CrOP. 

The  cultivation  of  the  crop  consists  chiefly  in  chopping 
or  thinning  out  the  plants  to  a  "stand" ;  in  repeated  plowings  and 
harrowings;  also  in  repeated  hoeings,  all  of  which  are  carried 
on  throughout  the  growing  season  and  until  the  crop  has  reached 
that  stage  of  maturity  to  be  "laid  by."  On  most  well  regulated 
cotton  plantations  the  cultivation  of  the  crop  ordinarily  involves 
a  greater  outlay  than  any  other  expenditure,  and  in  normal 
times  this  is  true  as  to  the  whole  of  the  cotton  belt.  It  happens, 
however,  that  the  average  in  1917  for  all  States,  $7.06  per  acre, 
falls  below  the  rental  charge  of  $7.50,  the  high  rate  of  the  latter 


11 

being  due  to  the  extraordinary  price  of  lint  and  seed,  giving 
the  landowner  who  received  a  share  of  the  crop  an  abnormally 
high  allowance  for  rent.  However,  the  expense  of  cultivation 
runs  very  high  in  some  localities,  not  only  giving  evidence  of 
following  the  most  approved  methods  of  culture,  but  also  show- 
ing almost  without  exception,  that  the  returns  were  liberal 
enough  to  justify  the  outlay.  The  highest  cost  of  cultivation 
was  $20.00  per  acre  in  each  of  the  States  of  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Louisiana.  The  next  highest  was  $16.00 
in  North  Carolina  and  Mississippi,  followed  by  $15.00  in  Ar- 
kansas, Tennessee  and  Texas.  The  lowest  expenditure  was 
$1.25  reported  from  Southwest  Texas.  The  five  States,  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and  Oklahoma,  each 
report  as  low  as  $2.00  per  acre  expended  for  cultivation. 

Picking  the  Crop. 

The  ingenuity  of  man  so  far  has  failed  in  devising  a  suc- 
cessful cotton  picking  machine,  so  that  we  have  still  to  depend 
upon  the  nimbler  fingered  whites  or  blacks  to  gather  the  crop. 
As  the  average  amount  picked  per  day  is  less  than  150  pounds 
to  the  hand,  the  process  is  necessarily  slow  and  it  is  often  late 
in  the  winter  and  almost  time  to  begin  preparations  for  the 
new  crop  before  picking  is  finally  completed.  The  cost  of  pick- 
ing is  generally  governed  by  the  price  of  lint  cotton,  and  as 
this  was  very  high  throughout  the  past  picking  season,  the 
cost  was  proportionately  high.  The  average  price  paid  in  all 
States  for  picking  per  acre  in  1917  was  $5.88,  which  is  just 
about  the  equivalent  of  $1.00  per  100  pounds.  This  was  the 
average  for  the  season,  or  to  January  1st,  but  as  the  price  of 
cotton  continued  to  advance  from  the  opening  of  the  season, 
the  price  for  picking  also  advanced.  The  varying  cost  is  illus- 
trated by  three  reports  from  Georgia,  one  showing  $1.00  a  hun- 
dred paid  for  picking  1,500  pounds,  or  $15.00  to  the  acre;  an- 
other $1.25  per  hundred  for  1,200  pounds,  or  $15.00  to  the  acre. 
There  are  reports  of  $2.00  per  hundred  paid  in  Mississippi; 
$1.60  in  Louisiana;  $1.90  in  Texas;  $2.14  in  Arkansas;  and 
$2.20  in  Oklahoma.  On  the  other  hand  as  low  as  60  cents  per 
acre  is  reported  from  Alabama,  and  50  cents  per  acre  from 


12 

Northwest  Texas,  but  in  both  cases  the  yield  per  acre  was  small, 
the  Alabama  farm  showing  only  66  2/3  pounds,  and  the  Texas 
farm  50  pounds,  making  the  cost  in  each  case  approximately 
$1.00  per  hundred  pounds. 

Ginning  and  Pressing. 

Under  this  heading  is  the  preparation  of  the  crop  for  market, 
which  consists  in  ginning,  pressing,  and  wrapping  the  bale  with 
bagging  and  ties.  There  were  approximately  23,000  ginneries 
engaged  in  this  work  last  season,  and  their  average  charge  in  all 
States  was  97  cents  per  hundred,  or  about  $4.85  for  a  500  pound 
bale.  This  contrasts  with  a  charge  of  $3.35  per  bale  of  500 
pounds  in  1909-10,  the  increase  of  $1.50  a  bale  being  due  to  the 
increased  cost  of  labor,  bagging  and  ties.  There  are  many  re- 
ports much  above  the  average,  one  from  Louisiana  being  the 
highest  or  $10.00  for  2,100  pounds,  which  is  equivalent  to  a 
fraction  over  $7.00  for  a  500  pound  bale.  Of  course  in  nearly 
all  cases  the  ginner  furnishes  the  bagging  and  ties,  generally 
taking  a  toll  of  lint  or  seed  for  ginning,  pressing  and  covering 
the  bale.  One  report  from  Alabama  is  as  low  as  $2.25  a  bale, 
but  in  this  case  the  yield  was  only  66  2/3  pounds  to  the  acre. 
Other  States  show  low  costs,  ranging  from  45  to  90  cents,  but 
on  each  farm  the  yield  was  low. 

Marketing  the  Crop. 

The  average  cost  per  acre  of  marketing  the  crop  of  1917 
in  all  States  was  99  cents,  equivalent  to  about  $2.50  a  bale. 
The  highest  cost  was  $6.00  in  Arkansas,  followed  by  $5.00  in 
each  of  the  States  of  Georgia  and  Louisiana.  In  numbers  of 
cases  a  charge  of  only  10  cents  to  the  acre  was  made.  Other 
low  charges  ranged  from  20  to  50  cents  to  the  acre.  Of  course 
on  a  great  number  of  farms  the  cost  amounts  to  nothing,  as 
the  farmer  hauls  his  seed  cotton  to  the  public  gin,  sells  it  to 
ginner  and  that  ends  any  further  expense. 

Miscellaneous  Expenses. 

This  item  was  included  in  the  list  of  expenditures  for  the 
purpose  of  covering  any  and  all  other  expenses  that  were  not 


13 

enumerated.  The  correspondents'  reports  show  that  in  most 
cases  they  have  taken  full  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  include 
every  other  possible  expense.  Georgia  reports  as  high  as  $12.00 
to  the  acre;  Mississippi  $11.50;  South  Carolina  $10.50;  North 
Carolina  $8.00;  and  each  of  the  States  of  Florida,  Alabama, 
Texas  and  Arkansas  $6.00,  the  other  States  showing  ranges 
from  $3.00  to  $5.75.  The  lowest  cost  was  10  cents  rei>orted 
from  each  of  the  States  of  South  Carolina,  Texas  (Northwest), 
and  Arkansas.  Other  low  charges  range  from  20  to  50  cents. 
The  average  for  all  States  was  estimated  at  $1.35  to  the  acre. 

Total  Cost  of  Cui^tivation. 

We  now  come  to  the  total  cost  of  cultivation,  and  as  might 
be  expected  in  area  embracing  34,600,000  acres,  and  with  a|>- 
parently  every  possible  misfortune  besetting  the  crop,  the  esti- 
mates show  a  very  wide  variation,  running  as  low  as  $8.65  in 
West  Texas  and  as  high  as  $91.50  i>er  acre  in  Georgia.  The 
ranges  for  the  principal  cotton  States  are  as  follows:  North 
Carolina,  $19.05  to  $83.46;  South  Carolina,  $25.50  to  $74.25; 
Georgia,  $13.35  to  $91.50;  Florida,  $20.50  to  $36.00;  Alabama, 
$10.55  to  $48.50;  Mississippi,  $13.80  to  $60.25 ;  Louisiana,  $20.00 
to  $68.85 ;  West  Texas,  $8.65  to  $79.05  in  South  Texas ;  Ar- 
kansas, $17.85  to  $65.25;  Tennessee,  $20.65  to  $39.15;  Okla- 
homa, $16.00  to  $69.80.  The  general  average  for  all  States  was 
$34.76,  which  is  125  per  cent,  greater  than  the  cost  in  1896-97, 
and  71  per  cent,  greater  than  the  cost  in  1909-10. 

Returns  Per  Acre. 

Lint  Yield.  The  average  lint  yield  in  1917  for  all  States 
was  194.5  pounds  to  the  acre.  This  apparently  high  yield 
may  in  part  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  our  correspond- 
ents represent  the  thriftier  class  of  farmers.  But  even  so, 
194.5  pounds  is  incomparably  low  as  contrasted  with  255.6  and 
245  pounds  shown  in  the  two  Government  reports,  the  first  be- 
ing 61.1  pounds  or  about  31.5  per  cent,  greater,  and  the  second 
50.5  pounds  or  26  per  cent,  greater.  But  our  correspondents 
have  not  failed  to  report  very  low  as  well  as  very  high  yields. 


14 

For  instance,  one  farm  in  Central  Texas  returned  only  25 
pounds  to  the  acre,  and  there  were  a  large  number  of  farms 
showing  less  than  85  pounds,  the  average  under  100  pounds  run- 
ning all  the  way  from  33  to  85  pounds.  North  Carolina  re- 
ported as  low  as  57  pounds;  Georgia  and  Florida  each  65 
pounds;  Alabama  66  2/3  pounds;  Tennessee  70  pounds;  Mis- 
sissippi 7S  pounds ;  and  Arkansas  85  pounds  to  the  acre.  The 
highest  yield  recorded  was  700  pounds  in  Louisiana,  the  next 
highest  600  pounds  in  South  Texas,  followed  by  500  pounds  in 
several  States,  and  below  this  a  range  of  200  to  450  pounds 
in  the  other  States.  Mr.  C.  K.  McClelland,  Agronomist 
of  the  Georgia  Experiment  Station,  writes  us,  viz :  ''There  are 
many  farms  near  here  (Experiment,  Spalding  Co.,  Ga.)  averag- 
ing 1^  to  \y2  bales  per  acre,  and  I  have  visited  some  fields 
where  2  bales  were  made  over  fields  of  some  size.  These  yields 
have  been  made  under  the  direction  of  good  cotton  farmers,  and 
with  liberal  use  of  fertiHzer." 

Price  of  Lint.  The  price  of  lint  takes  a  very  wide  range.  In 
Georgia,  Alabama,  Texas,  Tennessee,  and  Oklahoma  the  re- 
turns from  some  farms  sold  as  low  as  20  cents  a  pound;  in 
South  Carolina  and  Mississippi  as  low  as  22.5  cents,  and  in  the 
other  States  from  23  to  25  cents.  Whether  the  lower  prices 
were  due  to  sales  in  the  early  part  of  the  season  when  prices 
were  lower,  or  to  contracts  made  before  the  advance  in  prices, 
or  to  the  low  grade  of  the  staple,  is  not  stated.  The  higher 
prices  ranged  from  29  cents  in  Tennessee  to  32  cents  per  pound 
in  Alabama  for  upland,  while  35  cents  in  Mississippi,  and  37.5 
cents  were  paid  for  long  staple  upland,  70  cents  for  Florida 
sea-island  and  75  cents  a  pound  for  Arizona  Egyptian.  The 
average  price  for  all  States  was  27.5  cents  a  pound. 

The  Value  of  Lint.  The  total  value  of  lint  per  acre  re- 
turned from  all  farms  was  $53.49.  As  in  the  case  of  lint  the 
values  vary  greatly,  running  as  low  as  $6.75  per  acre  in  Cen- 
tral Texas,  and  $16.25  in  North  Carolina.  In  the  other  States 
the  lowest  values  run  from  $17.55  in  Georgia  to  $34.80  in 
Louisiana.  The  highest  value  of  lint  per  acre  was  $210.00  in 
Louisiana,  the  next  highest  $186.00  in  South  Texas.  The  high 
values  in  the  other  States  range  from  $70.00  in  Alabama  to 
$150.00  in  Georgia. 


15 

Seed  and  Its  Value.  The  average  returns  of  seed  from  all 
farms  was  12.5  bushels  to  the  acre,  valued  at  $12.82  or  about 
$1.00  per  bushel.  As  low  as  2y^  bushels  to  the  acre  were  the 
returns  from  one  farm  in  Central  Texas,  while  the  lowest  re- 
turns from  all  other  States  ranged  from  3  to  6  bushels.  The 
highest  returns  were  35  bushels  each  from  North  Carolina  and 
South  Texas;  33  bushels  from  South  Carolina;  and  30  bushels 
from  each  of  the  States  of  Georgia  and  Arkansas.  High  yields 
from  other  States  ranged  from  23  to  27  bushels.  The  lowest 
value  of  seed  per  acre  was  $1.44  reported  from  Alabama,  and 
the  next  lowest  $1.60  from  West  Texas.  The  low  values  from 
other  States  ranged  from  $3.00  in  Tennessee  to  $6.90  in  Louisi- 
ana. The  highest  value  of  seed  from  one  acre  was  $50.00  in  Lou- 
isiana, and  the  next  highest  $40.00  in  each  of  the  States  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia.  The  high  values  from  other  States 
ranged  from  $18.00  in  Alabama  to  $37.50  in  each  of  the  States 
of  Arkansas  and  Oklahoma.  The  average  value  for  all  States 
was  $12.82  to  the  acre. 

Total  Value  of  Returns.  The  average  total  value  of  the  re- 
turns of  lint  and  seed  on  all  farms  was  $66.31  per  acre.  As 
in  the  case  of  all  other  values  shown  in  this  report  the  varia- 
tions are  conspicuous.  The  ranges  in  each  State  from  the  low- 
est to  the  highest  are  as  follows:  North  Carolina,  $19.40  to 
$178.00;  South  Carolina,  $42.55  to  $152.50;  Georgia,  $23.00  to 
$180.00;  Florida,  $21.40  to  $117.00;  Alabama,  $21.44  to  $88.00; 
Mississippi,  $26.25  to  $122.50;  Louisiana,  $42.30  to  $260.00;  Cen- 
tral Texas,  $8.50  to  $222.75  in  South  Texas ;  Arkansas,  $32.50 
to  $172.50;  Tennessee  $19.60  to  $129.05;  Oklahoma,  $30.00 
to  $108.10.  In  view  of  the  great  variation  in  the  yield  of  lint 
and  seed  these  figures,  as  great  as  is  the  range  from  lowest 
to  highest,  do  not  appear  to  be  unreasonable. 

Cost  of  Producing  Cotton  Per  Pound. 

The  results  of  this  investigation  show  that  after  subtracting 
the  value  of  the  by-products  from  the  cost  per  acre,  the  average 
net  cost  of  producing  a  pound  of  cotton  in  the  United  States  in 
1917-18  was  11.28  cents.  The  highest  cost  was  13.10  cents  per 
pound  in  Virginia.    In  a  descending  scale  the  cost  in  the  other 


16 

States  was  as  follows :  North  Carolina,  13.08  cents ;  Alabama, 
12.99  cents;  Missouri,  12.35  cents;  Tennessee,  12.14  cents;  Mis- 
sissippi, 11.42  cents ;  Arkansas,  11.42  cents ;  Georgia,  11.33  cents ; 
Texas,  11.07  cents;  Oklahoma,  10.21  cents;  Louisiana,  9.94 
cents;  South  Carolina,  9.85  cents;  California,  9.70  cents;  New 
Mexico,  7.11  cents.  It  costs  17.74  cents  to  produce  a  pound  of 
sea-island  cotton  in  Florida,  and  41.74  cents  to  make  a  pound 
of  long  staple  Egyptian  in  Arizona — this  very  high  cost,  how- 
ever, was  due  to  the  unusually  high  price  paid  for  irrigation. 
In  explanation  of  the  low  cost  of  production  in  Louisiana  and 
South  Carolina,  as  contrasted  with  the  cost  of  the  other  larg« 
producing  States,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  proportion  of  the 
total  cost  per  acre  to  the  total  returns  was  only  42  per  cent, 
in  Louisiana,  and  48  per  cent,  in  South  Carolina,  as  compared 
with  well  over  50  per  cent,  in  most  other  States.  Besides,  the 
yield  was  high  in  both  States,  and  each  of  these  States  produced 
better  crops  in  1917  than  were  made  in  any  of  the  other  States. 

Profits  on  One  Acre. 

The  average  net  profit  per  acre  in  all  States  in  1917  was 
$31.55.  The  highest  profit  (excluding  the  smaller  cotton  States 
in  the  extreme  West)  was  $48.20  in  South  Carolina,  and  the 
next  highest  $46.63  in  Louisiana.  In  the  order  named  the  profits 
per  acre  in  the  other  States  were  as  follows :  Virginia,  $39.75 ; 
Arkansas,  $35.51;  North  Carolina,  $34.61;  Missouri,  $34.29; 
Georgia,  $33.31;  Mississippi,  $30.17;  Oklahoma,  $26.82;  Flor- 
ida, $26.29;  Texas,  $25.88;  Tennessee,  $22.73;  Alabama,  $22.47. 
The  highest  profit  per  acre  in  each  State  was:  $106.50  in 
North  Carolina;  $118.00  in  South  Carolina;  $132.00  in  Georgia; 
$81.00  in  Florida;  $68.00  in  Alabama;  $92.00  in  Mississippi; 
$191.00  in  Louisiana;  $162.75  in  (South)  Texas;  $117.00  in 
Arkansas;  $90.00  in  Tennessee,  and  $72.50  in  Oklahoma. 
Among  the  smallest  profits  reported  were  10  cents  in  Alabama ; 
35  cents  in  North  Carolina;  $7.60  in  South  Carolina;  $3.65  in 
Mississippi;  $7.60  in  Louisiana;  .05  cents  in  (West)  Texas; 
$5.25  in  Arkansas;  $2.35  in  Tennessee;  $2.00  in  Oklahoma. 
Three  farms  in  Georgia  reported  a  loss,  the  lowest  being  50 
cents  and  the  highest  $13.00  to  the  acre.  There  were  losses 
reported  from  other  States  as  follows :     Florida,  one  loss  of 


17 

$5.50;  Alabama,  three  losses,  50  cents,  90  cents  and  $7.00; 
Texas,  eight  losses,  in  the  Central  section  55  cents,  70  cents, 
$1.80  and  $8.10;  in  the  Western  section  $1.22  and  $7.32;  in 
Southern  section  38  cents,  and  in  Southwestern  section  $5.60; 
Arkansas,  one  loss,  $17.42;  Tennessee,  two  losses,  $3.87  and 
$11.80.  The  States  reporting  no  losses  were  the  two  Carolinas, 
Mississippi,  Louisiana  and  Oklahoma. 

Conclusion. 

What  are  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  this  investiga- 
tion? Is  it  not  clear  enough  that  at  27^  cents  a  pound  for 
lint,  and  $1.00  a  bushel  for  the  by-product — giving  the  farmer 
an  average  net  profit  of  $31.55  per  acre — that  cotton  is  a  very- 
profitable  crop?  Indeed,  even  with  the  increased  cost  of  labor 
and  all  the  other  items  of  expense,  cotton  growing  is  profit- 
able when  sold  at  20  cents  a  pound.  One  farm  in  Oklahoma, 
where  the  expense  of  cultivation  was  $23.00  to  the  acre  and 
the  returns  were  150  pounds  of  lint  and  81/3  bushels  of 
seed,  reports  the  sale  of  the  crop  at  15  cents  a  pound  for  the 
lint  and  90  cents  a  bushel  for  seed,  and  even  at  this  low  price 
the  returns  gave  the  farmer  a  net  profit  of  $14.50  an  acre. 
There  are  numbers  of  cases  showing  good  profits  where  the 
crops  sold  for  20  cents  a  pound.  The  following  few  instances 
may  be  cited:  South  Carolina,  yield  300  pounds  to  the  acre, 
profit  $25.60;  Georgia,  yield  500  pounds,  profit  $53.50;  yield 
300  pounds,  profit  $53.00;  yield  250  pounds,  profit  $47.20;  yield 
100  pounds,  profit  $23.70;  Alabama,  yield  160  pounds,  profit 
$24.30;  East  Texas,  yield  125  pounds,  profit  $6.50;  West  Texas, 
yield  100  pounds,  profit  $23.35;  Southwest  Texas,  yield  125 
pounds,  profit  $24.00 ;  Tennessee,  yield  200  pounds,  profit  $39.50; 
Oklahoma,  yield  250  pounds,  profit  $44.05;  yield  140  pounds, 
profit  $21.50.  Of  course  in  most  of  such  cases  the  cost  of  cultiva- 
tion was  below  the  average,  but  the  fact  seems  clearly  estab- 
lished that  at  20  cents  cotton  was  a  profitable  crop. 

But  there  is  no  argument  needed  to  convince  the  South  of 
this  fact,  and  although  some  sections  have  sustained  losses  by 
drought  and  boll  weevils,  the  great  majority  of  cotton  farmers, 
in  spite  of  the  unprecedented  low  yield,  have  had  a  prosperous 


18 

year,  indeed  such  as  has  not  been  experienced  in  more  than  a 
generation.  What  will  be  the  effect  of  this  upon  the  planting 
of  the  coming  crop  ? 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  Southern  cotton  planter 
does  not  understand  the  situation.  He  does  understand  it. 
There  are  economists  and  wise  men  among  them  as  there  are 
in  other  great  industries,  and  they  have  studied  conditions  from 
every  standpoint.  They  know  they  have  had  three  poor  crops 
in  succession;  that  the  stocks  of  cotton  all  over  the  world  are 
far  below  requirements ;  they  know  that  whether  the  European 
war  lasts  one  year  or  a  half  dozen  years  the  demand  for  cotton 
will  increase  rather  than  diminish,  and  that  high  enough  prices 
will  be  maintained  to  insure  them  extra  good  profits  for  some 
years  to  come;  they  know  that  immediately  peace  is  in  sight 
the  Central  Powers  will  be  in  the  market  for  every  avail- 
able bale  of  cotton  that  can  be  bought;  they  know  that  Great 
Britain,  heretofore  dominating  the  cotton  goods  markets  of 
the  world,  will  never  yield  this  position  so  long  as  cotton  can 
be  had  to  keep  her  spindles  and  looms  at  work;  they  know 
that  the  price  of  silver  has  increased  greatly,  and  that  the  pur- 
chasing power  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  silver  using  countries 
of  South  America  and  the  Orient  will  be  proportionately  en- 
hanced, and  that  this  means  an  increased  demand  for  cotton 
goods;  they  know  the  wonderful  strides  the  United  States  has 
made  in  pushing  her  cotton  goods  trade  into  South  American 
markets  hitherto  monopolized  by  Great  Britain  and  Germany, 
and  that  every  possible  effort  will  be  made  by  our  manufacturers 
to  hold  this  trade  after  the  war ;  they  know,  in  spite  of  Japanese 
efforts  at  monopoly,  the  wonderful  possibilities  opening  up  to  the 
cotton  trade  in  the  Great  Republic  of  China;  they  know  that 
the  uses  made  of  the  cotton  fiber  are  continually  increasing; 
they  know  that  the  world's  cotton  spindles  are  increasing  every 
year,  and  that  when  peace  comes  a  tremendous  impetus  will 
be  given  to  cotton  consumption  all  over  the  world. 

With  such  knowledge  would  it  be  surprising  if  the  cotton 
planters  of  the  South  came  to  the  determination  to  plant  the 
very  largest  crop  it  is  possible  for  them  to  cultivate  ? 

Even  with  the  spindles  of  Central  Europe  shut  down,  the 
balance  of  the  world  is  consuming  American  cotton  at  the  rate 


19 

of  13^  to  14,000,000  bales  annually.  The  largest  cotton  acreage 
ever  harvested  was  37,089,000  acres  in  1913,  which  yielded  a 
crop  of  13,983,000  bales ;  the  next  largest  was  36,832,000  acres 
harvested  in  1914,  and  this  yielded  15,906,000  bales.  There- 
fore, should  the  war  continue  through  1918,  to  insure  an  ade- 
quate supply  of  cotton  the  present  acreage  (34,600,000  acres) 
should  be  increased  by  no  less  than  10  per  cent.  Even  this  with 
an  average  yield  would,  (exclusive  of  Hnters)  give  a  crop  of  only 
14,800,000  bales,  when  in  reality  there  should  be  a  carry-over 
of  at  least  two  million  bales.  But  suppose  peace  should  come 
before  the  close  of  the  year?  In  that  case  it  would  necessitate 
the  planting  of  over  40  millions  of  acres,  and  an  average  yield 
from  this  area  would  barely  meet  the  world's  requirements. 

We  believe  we  have  conclusively  demonstrated  that  cotton 
planting,  even  with  the  prevailing  high  cost,  is  extremely  profit- 
able : 

That  there  is  an  imperative  demand  for  a  crop  of  not  less 
than  14  million  bales — exclusive  of  linters: 

That  to  produce  a  crop  approximating  this  quantity  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  increase  the  acreage  this  Spring  no  less 
than  10  per  cent. ; 

We  believe  that  the  cotton  planters  fully  appreciate  these 
facts,  and  that  when  planting  time  comes  they  will  have  pre- 
pared every  available  acre  to  be  seeded  to  cotton. 

Just  here  it  is  worth  while  to  quote  the  following  from  a 
letter  received  from  one  of  the  most  prominent  wholesale  mer- 
chants and  cotton  factors  in  Louisiana.    He  writes : 

"A  good  deal  of  cotton  was  sold  for  around  20  to  25  cents, 
and  some  of  course  reaching  the  limit  of  30  cents.  At  the  same 
time  the  negroes  never  had  so  much  money,  and  all  the  farmers 
cleared  quite  a  sum,  and  while  we  have  been  in  business  here 
thirty-seven  years  we  have  never  had  such  satisfactory  collec- 
tions, nor  have  our  books  ever  been  so  clean  of  old  time  carry- 
over accounts.  So  that  we  are  quite  disposed  to  figure  a  hand- 
some profit  at  the  prevailing  average  prices  on  the  actual  cost 
of  production  for  1917." 


20 

Comparative   Cost   of   Items   Required   to    Make   Cotton 

1917-1914. 

In  connection  with  the  high  and  increased  price  of  cotton, 
it  is  interesting  to  compare  the  present  price  of  some  of  the 
items  necessary  to  cotton  production  with  the  price  before  the 
beginning  of  the  European  war.  In  the  table  below  we  have 
compiled  from  data  furnished  by  our  CorresfK>ndents,  statis- 
tics showing  the  average  price  of  such  items  in  each  State  and 
for  all  States,  and  the  percentage  increase  of  each  item.  An 
examination  of  the  table  discloses  a  marked  increase  since  1914 
in  all  of  the  items.  Of  the  implements  enumerated  single  and 
double  horse  plows  have  increased,  respectively,  67.8  and  73 
per  cent.  Bagging  per  yard  has  increased  60  per  cent.,  and  ties 
per  pound  113.2  per  cent.  The  average  price  of  plantation 
mules  is  now  $212.70  as  compared  w4th  $156.10  in  1914,  an 
increase  of  36  per  cent.  Fertilizers  most  commonly  used  have 
increased  from  $20.27  to  $37.70,  or  86  per  cent.  Plantation 
bacon  now  sells  for  31^  cents  as  against  13  cents,  an  increase 
of  142.3  per  cent.,  while  corn  meal  is  worth  $2.00  per  bushel 
as  compared  with  $1.08,  an  increase  of  85  per  cent.  Day  labor 
has  advanced  from  a  fraction  over  78  cents  to  slightly  over 
$1.42,  an  increase  of  81  per  cent.,  while  labor  by  the  month 
has  increased  from  $16.11  to  $29.31,  or  82  per  cent.  Cotton 
picking  per  100  pounds  has  advanced  in  almost  the  same  ratio — 
from  59  cents  to  a  fraction  over  $1.16  cents  a  hundred,  or  about 
80  per  cent. 


21 

TABLE  B. 
Comparative  Cost  of  Necessary  Items  in  Cotton  Cultivation,  1917-1914. 


STATES 

SiNOLK  HOBSK 

Plows. 

Double 
Horse 
Plows. 

Two  Horse 
Wagons. 

Plantation 
Hoes. 

Plantation 
Mules. 

Bagoino 
Per  Yard. 

Ties 
Per  Pound. 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

5.00 
9.50 
8.35 
9.50 
5.00 

4.50 
5.00 
5.00 
2.50 

8.85 
18.65 
14.85 
17.00 
20.00 

5.85 

8.85 
9.00 
10.00 
10.00 

65.00 
88.85 
100.00 
118.75 
87.50 
95.00 
125.00 
100.00 
85.00 
120.00 
100.00 

47.50 
46.65 
72.50 
60.00 
57.50 
37.95 
80.00 
60.00 
60.00 
100.00 
82.50 

Cts. 

Cts. 

$ 

291.65 

301.65 
275.00 
181.25 
175.00 
205.00 
200.00 
205.00 
175.00 
150.00 
180.00 

9 

216.65 

166.65 
185.00 
112.50 
175.00 
175.00 
146.25 
125.00 
185.00 
150.00 
130.00 

Cts. 
1294 

14% 

UH 
18 

im 

14 

15 

Cts 

S^ 

8 
9 

7% 

8% 
8% 

101/4 

4«Ao 
4% 
4% 
6%« 
5% 
4% 
6% 
5 

1% 
2 

1% 

South  Carolina 

Oeorgia   

.65 
.65 

.77 

.82 
.94 
.77 
.50 
1.00 

.80 
.40 
.41 
.50 
.50 
.60 
.48 
.35 
.50 

Alabama        

2%a 

Mississippi 

2 

194 

3% 

7.50 
12.00 
10.00 

4.85 
8.00 
5.50 

17.85 
20.00 
18.00 
70.00 
26.00 

11.25 
10.50 
9.50 
W.OO 
19.00 

Arkansas 

2Vi« 

Oklahoma  

20.00 

14.00 

17 

11 

7% 

8% 

Average 

$9.65 

5.81 

23.07 

13..S5 

98.15 

65.87 

.67 

.45 

212.70 

156.10 

im 

8% 

5% 

2% 

Percent.  Increase 
1917-1914  

67.8 

73.0 

49.0 

49.0 

86.0 

60.0 

118.2 

states 

Fertilizers, 
Pbr  Ton. 

Bacon, 
Per  Pound. 

Corn  Meat,, 
Per  Bushel. 

Labor  by 

THE  DAT. 

Labor  by 
THE  Month. 

Picking  Cot- 
ton Per  100 
Pounds 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

1917 

1914 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

S 
42.17 

50.00 

82.50 

81.45 

42.50 

35.00 

34.65 

40.00 

81.00 

22.75 
21.00 
22.15 
17.15 
22.00 
21.00 
21.65 
22.00 
12.75 

Cts, 
31% 

27% 

sm 

35 

8494 
81 
31 
80 

Cts. 

14% 

9 

13%o 
lOVs 
15 

UH 
13% 

9 

129i 
17^ 

9 
2.25 

2.25 

1.16% 
.90 

1.16% 

1.25 

1.06^ 

1.25 

1.50 

1.80 

1.6894 

1.75 

1.50 

1.75 

.83% 

.50 

.62^ 

.56)4 

.75 

.70 
1.06)4 

.87)^ 

.75 
1.20 

80.38% 
29.15 
23.12)^ 
27.50 

17.66% 
13.75 
14.25 
11.871,2 

.81% 

.88^^ 

.80 

.95% 
1.50 
1.00 

i.seva 

1.81% 

1.00 

2.00 

.48% 
.48% 

.4894 

.50 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

.75 

' 

.50 

Texas 

2.00 

.85 

85.00 
85.00 
23.00 

21.25 
19.00 
15.00 

.74% 
.55 

Tennessee 

1.50 
2.00 

1.10 
1.40 

.75 

Oklahoma 

.80 

Missouri 

87.70 

20.27 

81H 

18 

2.00 

1.08 

1.42^0 

.78% 

2     81 

16.11 

1.16% 

.59 

Per  Cent,  Increase 
1917-1914 

86.0 

142.8 

85  0 

81.0 

82. 

80  n 

1 

22 


Cost  of  Production  and  Returns  Per  Acre  in  Texas. 

Texas  is  so  great  a  cotton  producing  State — sometimes 
making  one-fourth  of  the  entire  crop — its  climate  so  erratic,  its 
soil  so  variable,  its  methods  of  culture  so  lacking  in  uniformity, 
that  the  statistics  in  the  following  table  may  prove  of  some 
interest.  The  table  shows  the  average  cost  of  producing  cotton 
per  acre,  and  the  returns  per  acre,  in  each  of  the  seven  sub- 
divisions of  the  State,  and  throws  considerable  light  upon 
economic  conditions  in  the  different  sections  so  far  as  relates 
to  cotton  culture  in  1917-18. 

TABLE  C. 
Cost  of  Production  and  Returns  Per  Acre  in  Texas,  1917. 


Items  of 

Cost  per  Acre. 

Sub-Divisions. 

Rent. 

Fertilizers. 

Preparing 
Land. 

Seed. 

Planting 
Seed. 

Cultiva- 
tion. 

Picking. 

Ginning. 

North  Texas 

$9.42 
7.84 
7.28 
5.78 
8.88 
9.72 
5.18 

$2.82 
3.29 
8.06 
2.19 
1.93 
8.69 
2.25 

$1.12 
1.12 
1.54 
•87 
1.01 
1.85 
1.18 

$0.76 
1.22 
0.94 
0.88 
0.75 
1.36 
0.78 

$5.86 
7.36 
5.97 
4,17 
8.47 
6.58 
8.28 

$7.75 
5.17 
4.11 
4.05 
1.69 
7.80 
8.38 

$2.05 
1  93 

East       "      

2.39 

.58 

Central  "      

1.69 
1.65 
1.15 
2.66 
1.28 

West                "      

South               "      — 
South- West      " 

1.86 

State  Averages 

6.42 

1.00 

2.94 

1.28 

1.03 

5.74 

5.15 

1.88 

Items  of  Cost  Continued. 

Returns  per  Acre. 

Sub-Divisions. 

Market- 
ing. 

Miscella- 
neous. 

Total 
Cost. 

Lint 
Cotton, 
Pounds. 

Price  of 
Lint, 
Cents. 

Value  of 
Lint. 

Seed, 
Bushels. 

Value 
of  Seed. 

Total 
Value. 

$0.88 
1.00 
0.62 
0.74 
0.33 
1.10 
0.99 

$0.66 
0.85 
0.78 
0.34 
0.30 
1.12 
0.86 

$81.81 

81.86 
26.72 
20.74 
14.51 
87.83 
19.06 

198.0 
158.4 
128.6 
124.6 
58.5 
279.0 
114.2 

26.4 
26.8 
27.0 
25.0 
24.6 
27.5 
25.3 

$52.42 
42.72 
34.72 
81.27 
14.92 
77.00 
28.83 

12.0 
9.5 

11.0 
7.0 
8.6 

18.3 
7.0 

$12.63 
9.61 
8.81 
7.09 
8.80 
15.14 
7.17 

$65.05 
52.83 
48  58 

East        "     

Central   "     

North-West  Texas.... 
West                 "     .... 
South               "     .... 
South-West      "     .... 

38.86 
18.72 
92.14 
36.00 

State  Averages 

0.92 

0.78 

28.11 

164.8 

26.7 

44.13 

10.7 

9.86 

53.99 

23 

Effect  of  Fertilizers  on  the  Crop  of  1917. 

It  was  the  common  belief,  in  which  we  also  shared,  that 
the  lack  of  sufficient  potash  in  the  commercial  fertilizers  applied 
to  the  cotton  lands,  was  largely  responsible  for  the  small  yield 
last  year,  as  well  as  the  two  previous  years.  Three  poor  crops 
in  succession,  with  little  or  no  potash  in  the  restricted  amount 
of  fertilizers  used,  naturally  led  to  this  conclusion.  We  had 
been  led  to  believe  that  there  were  extensive  bodies  of  cotton 
lands  that  could  not  make  successful  crops  without  potash.  We 
felt,  however,  that  we  needed  authoritative  and  scientific  advice 
on  the  subject  and  we  therefore  sought  the  opinion  of  the 
Directors  of  the  Experiment  Stations  in  the  cotton  States.  The 
following  are  extracts  from  the  letters  of  some  of  the  Directors 
who  favored  us  with  their  views: 

Auburn,  Ala. — iMabama  Polytechnic  Institute. — "In  an- 
swer to  your  first  inquiry  I  would  say  that  the  most  common 
fertilizer  formula  for  cotton  prior  to  the  European  War  con- 
tained about  2  per  cent,  of  potash.  In  subsequent  years  there 
has  been  used  a  little  fertiHzer  containing  2  per  cent.,  probably 
from  supplies  of  potash  left  over  the  preceding  year,  probably 
a  larger  amount  containing  1  per  cent,  of  potash  and  probably 
still  more  containing  either  no  potash  or  only  the  extremely 
small  amount  carried  in  the  cotton-seed  meal  or  other  source 
of  ammoniates.  Those  who  have  studied  the  question  are  by 
no  means  agreed  whether  this  decrease  in  the  average  per- 
centage of  potash  in  fertilizers  for  cotton  has  any  very  im- 
portant relation  to  the  decrease  in  yield  from  this  crop,  since 
this  factor  is  complicated  with  the  other  factors  of  unusual 
weather  conditions  in  the  past  two  years,  increased  extent  of 
weevil  infected  territory,  and  a  decrease  in  the  supply  of  labor. 
On  the  whole,  students  of  the  agricultural  situation  are,  I 
believe,  inclined  to  think  that  the  average  production  of  cotton 
per  acre  has  been  less  influenced  by  the  decreased  use  of  potash 
than  might  have  been  expected.  In  Alabama  where  other  causes, 
and  possibly  this  also  has  resulted  in  an  extreme  decrease  in 
the  cotton  crop,  the  cotton  plant  has  suffered  on  the  average 
somewhat  less  from  potash  hunger  by  reason  of  the  fact  that 
much  of  the  gray,  sandy  land  in  which  the  need  for  potash  is 


24 

greatest,  has  this  year  been  devoted  to  peanuts  rather  than 
cotton.  In  other  words,  I  think  that  the  cotton  crop  of  1917 
in  Alabama  was  on  the  average  planted  on  land  in  which  the 
natural  supply  of  potash  averages  somewhat  better  than  on  the 
larger  area  of  land  devoted  to  cotton  in  this  State  a  few  years 
ago." — J.  F.  DuGGAR,  Director. 

GainesviUvE,  Fla. — College  of  Agriculture. — '1  think  you 
are  mistaken  when  you  ascribe  the  low  cotton  production  in  the 
Southern  States  to  potash  rather  than  to  the  weevil  invasion. 
The  absence  of  potash  undoubtedly  cuts  down  the  yield  of  cotton 
in  the  South,  but  certainly  has  no  effect  comparable  to  that  of 
the  boll  weevil.  Much  of  the  cotton  land  of  the  South  is  fairly 
well  supplied  with  potash.  I  have  seen  potash  experiments 
conducted  in  cotton  fields  where  there  was  no  perceptible  dif- 
ference in  yield  between  the  plots  receiving  potash  and  those 
receiving  no  potash.  There  are  lands,  however,  in  the  South 
so  low  in  potash  that  a  very  small  addition  of  this  element  makes 
a  marked  improvement  in  the  plant  and  a  marked  increase  in 
the  yield.  There  was'  never  any  very  definite  percentage  of 
potash  used  in  the  cotton  fertilizer.  The  10-2-2  goods  was 
probably  the  most  popular  among  the  cotton  planters ;  this  con- 
tained 10  per  cent,  phosphoric  acid,  2  per  cent,  potash,  and  2 
per  cent,  ammonia.  On  the  other  hand,  a  very  large  number 
of  cotton  growers  in  the  coastal  plains  made  it  a  regular  practice 
to  apply  Kainit,  this  as  you  know  contains  from  12  to  14  per 
cent,  of  potash.  Many  of  them  used  this  as  the  only  fertilizer 
that  was  applied  to  the  cotton.  Others  used  the  10-2-2  goods 
and  then  made  an  after  application  of  Kainit.  If  the  only 
disturbing  factor  in  cotton  production  were  the  shortage  of 
potash,  this  would  certainly  not  reduce  the  total  amount  pro- 
duced, the  higher  price  of  the  cotton  would  more  than  counteract 
the  effect  of  potash  shortage." — P.  H.  RoIvFS,  Dean  and  Director. 

RAI.EIGH,  N.  C. — Agricultural  Experiment  Station. — "In  the 
main  cotton  growing  section  of  our  State  the  fertilizers  con- 
tained 2  to  4  per  cent,  potash  in  the  pre-war  period,  the  average 
being  fully  3  per  cent.  Since  the  war  has  been  in  progress  this 
amount  has  been  more  than  cut  half  in  two;  possibly  not  more 


25 


than  one-fourth  or  one-third  has  been  used.  Next  to  nitrogen 
or  ammonia,  potash  is  the  most  influential  fertilizer  in  cotton 
production,  and  I  am  sure  that  the  reduction  of  the  amount  of 
potash  in  fertiHzers  has  greatly  decreased  the  yield  of  cotton. 
The  prospects  are  for  a  larger  supply  of  potash  for  fertilizers 
this  season,  but  the  cost  is  high,  five  to  six  times  as  much  as 
formerly,  but  there  will  be  a  considerably  larger  quantity  used 
this  year  than  in  the  past  two  years.  I  would  estimate  that 
around  one-half  the  normal  quantity  will  be  used  this  season 
in  cotton  fertilizers." — B.  W.  Kii^gore,  Director. 

Experiment,  Ga. — Georgia  Experiment  Station. — "It  is  a 
little  too  early  yet  (date  Dec.  14,  1917)  to  connect  up  the  short 
crop  of  the  past  three  years  with  the  potash  shortage.  I  have 
not  the  statistics  at  hand,  but  if  the  short  crop  can  be  laid  at 
the  feet  of  the  Southeastern  States  alone,  where  potash  is  espe- 
cially needed  and  used,  well  and  good,  but  if  the  shortness  is 
general  for  the  cotton  belt,  and  I  think  it  is,  then  it  can  hardly 
be  laid  to  the  lack  of  potash.  The  sandy  lands  of  the  coastal 
plains  of  our  own  State  do  need  potash,  but  lands  of  the  Pied- 
mont country  require  very  little  if  any,  and  those  of  North 
Georgia  still  less.  This  year  for  the  first  time  we  have  noticed 
spots  in  different  fields  where  there  was  a  rust  or  sickness,  due 
partly  to  true  rust  no  doubt,  but  in  some  instances  to  red  spider, 
and  in  some  instances  to  potash  hunger.  On  the  other  hand, 
though  this  is  the  third  year  in  which  we  have  been  short  of 
potash,  the  very  best  crops  for  the  three  years  in  this  section  of 
the  State  have  been  made  this  past  year.  There  are  many  farms 
near  here  averaging  1>4  to  1^  bales  per  acre,  and  I  have  visited 
some  fields  where  2  bales  were  made  over  fields  of  some  size. 
These  yields  have  been  made  under  the  direction  of  good  farmers 
and  with  liberal  use  of  fertilizer.  Providence  furnishing  a  better 
growing  season.  It  is  true  there  has  been  more  reduction  in 
yield  than  in  acreage  over  the  cotton  belt  as  a  whole,  and  if 
low  yields  continue  to  be  made — in  the  Southeastern  States 
especially — we  must  then  conclude  that  lack  of  potash  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  it.  It  may  be  that  our  good  crops  were  this 
year  made  from  potash  of  previous  years'  application ;  time  alone 
can  straighten  us  out.     We  do  know  that  potash  has  shown 


26 

good  results  in  all  experiments,  especially  on  the  lighter  soils, 
but  so  far  at  least  we  are  making  good  cotton  without  it. 
Before  the  war,  fertilizers  analyzing  10-2-2  were  very  commonly 
used  on  our  clay  lands  here,  9-2-2  to  an  equal  extent  probably, 
while  on  the  sandy  soils  which  require  more  of  both  nitrogen 
and  potash,  9-3-4  were  very  commonly  used  (the  last  numeral 
gives  per  cent,  of  potash).  Now  it  is  possible  to  get  mixed 
goods  with  .5  to  1.5  per  cent,  potash,  but  the  potash  element 
being  so  high  few  are  buying  that  mixture.  Our  large  farmers 
buy  acid  phosphate  and  cotton  seed  meal,  and  use  only  such 
potash  as  is  in  the  Yneal."— C.  K.  McCi^eixand,  Agronomist. 

Agricultural  College,  Miss. — A.  and  M.  College. — "In 
this  State  no  data  are  available  to  show  that  decreased  pro- 
duction is  ascribable  in  any  degree  to  the  difficulty  of  obtaining 
adequate  supplies  of  potash.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be 
stated  that  experiments,  carried  on  by  our  experiment  station 
here  a  good  many  years  ago,  were  strong  in  their  indication 
that  potash  salts  were  of  doubtful  benefit  as  fertilizer  material 
for  the  cotton  crop.  It  is  well  known,  of  course,  that  Kainit, 
and  perhaps  other  potash  salts  also,  tend  to  prevent  the  blighting 
of  cotton.  I  cannot  say  to  what  extent  blight  is  ordinarily 
prevalent.  I  do  not  believe  that  losses  by  blight  are  by  any 
means  comparable  to  those  resulting  from  the  depredation  of 
boll  weevils." — W.  F.  Hand,  State  Chemist. 

Clemson  College,  S.  C. — Clemson  Agricultural  College. — 
"Our  fertilizer  tests  indicate  that  potash  is  a  very  important 
factor  in  the  production  of  cotton  in  the  Southern  counties  ol 
this  State.  In  fact  our  tests  indicate  that  a  percentage  as  high 
as  6  per  cent,  is  advisable  on  some  of  these  soils.  In  the  Pied- 
mont section  on  the  heavy  clay  soils  we  get  very  little  results 
from  the  use  of  potash.  It  may  be  interesting  for  you  to  review 
your  statistics  in  the  light  of  this  information,  and  find  if  the 
same  falling  off  is  noticed  in  the  upper  Piedmont  as  in  the 
Pee  Dee  section.  I  should  indeed  be  interested  to  know  what 
the  result  of  such  a  study  will  show  you." — T.  E.  Keitt, 
Chemist. 


27 

Fayetteville,  Ark. — Agricultural  Experiment  Station. — 
"Prior  to  the  war  the  average  grade  of  commercial  fertilizers 
contained  about  2  per  cent,  potash.  Most  manufacturers  of 
fertilizer  now  in  the  State  do  not  carry  potash  at  all.  Of 
course,  we  expect  almost  no  relief  until  the  war  closes.  For- 
tunately for  this  State,  we  do  not  need  potash  as  much  as  we 
need  nitrate  and  phosphoric  acid." — Martin  Nei^son,  Dean 
and  Director. 


9844Z 


v^'V. 


Sip 
^^ 

ill 

Si 


ni«  Erealng  Post  Job  Printing  OflSce,  Inc. 
15 a  Fulton  St.,  N.  Y. 


i 


415324 

-B3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


